this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
687 points (97.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

32479 readers
301 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (10 children)

~~fc00::/7 are ULA (basically what RFC1918 was for IPv4)~~ not entirely true, fc00::/8 is part of ULA, but it is not yet defined. Use fd00::/8 instead.
2001:db8::/32 is for documentation purposes

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (7 children)

IMO they shouldn't have allowed ULA as part of the standard. There's no good reason for it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yeah there is: not breaking all your internal traffic when the wan link goes down and you lose your prefix.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I can potentially see that scenario if your transit provider is giving you a dynamic prefix but I've never seen that in practice. The address space is so enormous there is no reason to.

Otherwise with either of RADVD or DHCPv6 the local routers should still be able to handle the traffic.

My home internal network (v6, SLAAC) with all publicly routeable addresses doesn't break if I unplug my modem.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

IIRC, there are some sloppy ISPs who are needlessly handing out prefixes dynamically. ISPs seem to be doing everything they can to fuck this up, and it seems more incompetence than malice. They are hurting themselves with this more than anybody else.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)